Children may encounter AI through homework tools, entertainment, tutoring and social apps. Their needs cannot be met by treating them as smaller adult users and adding a generic warning.
Understand the actual use and audience
Define whether a service is directed to children, is likely to be used by them, or simply allows mixed-age access. Examine the kind of personal information collected, the consequences of errors and the risk of emotional dependence or inappropriate advice. Minimum-age requirements and consent rules vary by country and product; do not invent one worldwide threshold.
Minimize collection first
Limit identification, geolocation, contact details and conversation history to what is justified. Do not solicit unnecessary school records, family circumstances or health information. A model that replies politely can still record sensitive disclosures in application logs or third-party analytics. Explain data flows to guardians and users in language suitable for their context.
Design safer interaction patterns
Support accurate explanations of uncertainty and encourage qualified adult help in high-stakes situations. Make it easy to report concerning content and leave an interaction. Avoid deceptive representations that a conversational system is a licensed clinician, close friend or real child. Test whether adversarial prompts or generated links can bypass safeguards.
Evaluate accessibility and fairness
A tutoring assistant should be tested across literacy levels, disabilities and supported languages. Verify generated citations to learning material and ensure explanations do not reinforce stereotypes. Human teachers and guardians should retain appropriate oversight, while respecting children’s privacy and agency.
Example: homework assistant
A service can show worked reasoning about a math concept, link to approved curriculum and state uncertainty instead of inventing a historical source. It should not share student submissions with unknown external tools or publish a child’s personal conversation as a public example.
Legal scope
Privacy, consumer protection, education and safeguarding rules differ significantly across jurisdictions. UNESCO’s ethics framework and privacy-regulator guidance supply principles but do not replace local requirements for children’s data.
Sources & Further Reading
- Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence — UNESCO.
- Principles for responsible privacy-protective generative AI — Office of Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
- Privacy guidance for commercial AI products — OAIC Australia.
- WCAG 2.2 overview — W3C WAI.
Guidance varies by jurisdiction and application. This is general education, not legal, medical or other professional advice.